FD24P00406 - [2025] EWHC 2836 (Fam)

Ms Fottrell KC and Mr Powell emphasise that S does not wish to be in litigation with his parents but he considers that is the only way he feels his wish to return to live here can be achieved.

His primary position is to return to the family home in January 2026 to be reunited with his parents at the start of the school term. He is committed to working with BHAO or similar and requests that work starts as soon as possible with both him and his parents. In the alternative he seeks to return in summer 2026 to allow him to commence year 11 in September 2026 at a new school. The second alternative, which he does not support, is to return after his GCSEs, in the summer of 2027, to start his A levels here.

Ms Fottrell submits that at the conclusion of the oral evidence there was common ground ‘that if the risk to [S] in England can be reduced, managed and ultimately ameliorated, the optimum outcome is for him to return to live with his family in London.’ The evidence from Dr Willemsen, she submits, concludes that S has experienced emotional harm from the move to Ghana and he is at risk of further emotional and psychological harm in the short and long term if he remains there. She submits ‘Essentially this case requires an evaluation of the risk to [S] from the competing options’ recognising there is no perfect solution however the reparative work is needed as a matter of urgency for S, his parents and the wider family.

In her analysis of the risk if S returns Ms Fottrell draws on Mr Jeary’s evidence that S is not only insightful and intelligent but also, in Mr Jeary’s view, ‘quite genuine and remorseful’. He considered S had maturity and was able to listen and answer his questions. Mr Jeary took S through Hayden J’s findings and noted, in his view, that S

“…is very much on the periphery, he may have got involved but I don’t think he did get drawn in enough to really damage him and I really think by contacting Mr. Netto shows a sign of intelligence that I think if he did come back there is a good possibility he wouldn’t be further drawn into it but there’s lots of issues that are still outstanding and that’s the worry seeing what [the local authority] said, he’s likely not to reach threshold but his parents are capable of taking care and I think if he behaved how they wanted him to behave it would be a success”. He felt S wanted a chance to prove himself and had a level of recognition in the part he had played in what had happened. Mr Jeary acknowledged there were lots of issues to address in the family and supported family therapy. Ms Fottrell relies on Mr Jeary’s assessment that if the court considered S should return to England that the parents would make that work and would not shut the door on him. Mr Jeary, she submits has significant experience in working with young people and weight should be placed on his assessment.

Ms Fottrell submits Dr Willemsen’s evidence was clear that S’ sense of abandonment was likely to continue, coupled with a sense of guilt and feeling lonely in Ghana. He considered S was working hard to survive in Ghana and he did not consider S was exaggerating the upset he felt about what had happened and his situation. He supported therapeutic work with S and his family.

Turning to consider the parents’ evidence Ms Fottrell submitted there was a rigidity in their position, not being able to properly reflect on the changes made by S or fully comprehend the harm caused to S by remaining in Ghana. She recognised the parents’ willingness to work with BHAO and the outcomes outlined by BHAO aligned with what they wanted to achieve for S.

Ms Fottrell submits that in assessing the evidence there was an acceptance in the expert evidence that S had moved on and matured, he was genuine in his commitment to work to make changes and would continue to suffer emotional harm if he remained in Ghana. If S remains in Ghana the issues with him and his parents will not be properly addressed and his parents have expressed a willingness to undertake that work. She submits the optimum outcome is for S to return to his family and there is now a roadmap which facilitates S’ safe return.

That road map, she submits, includes the willingness by the local authority for there to be a Family Assistance Order that they would be ‘willing to cooperate in principle, provided the order is clearly defined in scope and duration’. The local authority have looked at the proposal regarding involvement by BHAO and they consider it falls within the remit of the ‘Adolescent and Exploitation Service already embedded within [the local authority]’. That service routinely provides interventions for young people affected by extra-familial harm, exploitation and gang association, including: i. contextual safeguarding assessments. ii. Mentoring and diversionary work through commissioned partners; and iii. Family-based therapeutic and practical support. Accordingly, the Local Authority is not proposing to commission BHAO at this stage, as equivalent intervention and clinical oversight can be delivered in-house or via existing pathways…should the court nonetheless direct that BHAO involvement is necessary, the Local Authority would of course comply with that direction and would review funding implications once a fully costed proposals is received.’ The Local Authority recognise that a Family Assistance Order could potentially assist to provide short term structured support to help the family re-build relationships and communication, offer a bridge ensuring that a reintegration plan is monitored and adjustments made if difficulties arise and allow an appointed officer to signpost and coordinate services across education, mental health, and youth support.